Apparently not. I say apparently not, because a very brief AP report on McCain's charge and Romney's emphatic denial ends with this paragraph:

While he has never set public date for withdrawal, Romney has said that President Bush and Iraqi leaders should have private timetables and benchmarks with which to gauge progress on the war and determine troop levels. He has said publicly that he agrees with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, that U.S. troops could move to more of an oversight role in 2008. It is possible that the AP missed something very obvious in Romney's public record here, but I seriously doubt it. It's just as possible that the New England Patriots overlooked some game tape on Eli Manning. The AP, as anyone following this race knows, has been so anti-Romney as to defy parody. If this is the best they can come up with to put a hint of plausibility on McCain's attack, then McCain's case must be very weak indeed. Calling for private timetables and benchmarks with which to gauge progress, etc.. is a world away from McCain's charge. In fact, it is a highly reasonable posture for even the most aggressive proponent of victory. Ah, how far we have come from the heady days of Cindy Sheehan's ascendancy, when everyone assumed that the retreat from Iraq couldn't happen fast enough, and the last politician to deny responsibility for the war would have to turn out the lights. Give the military and the president credit for ignoring the pundits and senile elder statesmen who tried to talk them into retreat.

But McCain's straight talk express swerved into the mud on this one, and the fact that he chose to do so suggests some desperation. He will only get away with it if the MSM who have invested so heavily in his success cover for him.

For his part, Mitt should have the resources to counter this sleight of hand from the straight talker. And the fact that he does illustrates, again, the danger of suppressing free speech as embodied in McCain-Feingold. When the MSM conspires with a candidate to promote a lie and suppress its counter, someone needs to be able to do the end run.

It reminds me of an essay written by Lynn Nofziger years ago during the OJ trial. Nofziger had been falsely indicted for corruption during the Reagan years and fought the rap and won. He pointed out that any time a state or federal decides it wants to take someone out, the resources it brings to the table dwarf anyones capacity to counter them. We shouldn't fault those -- like the Duke lacrosse players who have the resources and fight back. We should applaud them.

Likewise with the candidate who has the resources to counter an MSM that shoots at him on sight but slavishly panders to his opponent.

On August 31, 1967, George Romney, the voluble, vigorous three-term governor of Michigan and former automotive executive, walked into a Detroit TV station to be interviewed by a local broadcaster with a lousy hairpiece. For more than a year, Romney had been talked about as the Republicans’ best chance for winning the White House in 1968. But the national campaign trail, at first welcoming, had become bumpy. Reporters pressed Romney repeatedly to explain his ever-evolving and often confusing position on military involvement in Vietnam, which he had strongly supported after a visit to South Vietnam in 1965 but later declared a tragic mistake. Polls showed his lead fading.

So, during that August interview, when he was asked to explain his inconsistent position on the war, Romney replied, “Well, you know, when I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get.”

There, he said it. One word, brainwashing, and his presidential campaign would never recover. Worse, that one politically charged word became not just the shorthand for his aborted White House run, but the bumper sticker for his entire life’s work. Forget the poor boy who rose, Horatio Alger-style, to national acclaim. Forget the visionary of Detroit, who successfully championed the compact car over what he termed “gas-guzzling dinosaurs.” Forget the straight-talking politician who steered Michigan government from financial ruin and pushed through a new state constitution. In the four decades since that interview, there has been a Pavlovian response to the American political trivia question, “Who was George Romney?” Answer: The brainwashed guy.

People should realize that there are no pure conservatives in the race, and Mitt is more liberal than any of them, with the possible exception of Guiliani. Some think Guiliani may just be more up front in his liberal beliefs than Mitt.

Mitt said he supports an AWB in the debate the other night. McCain may be wrong on open borders and the tax cut, but he never voted for an AWB. He ran to the left of Kennedy on social issues, and did not publicly state any conservative positions until he decided to run for office.

He stated there should be a withdrawl date set. He can either defend his position or say he was wrong. He is pretending he didn’t say something that is in the public record.

People are free to support any candidate they want, but Mitt supporters should stop pretending like he is the clear conservative and everybody who doesn’t support him is some liberal. That is absurd. Mitt is not conservative. Any person who doubts this should ask one question, are the majority of voters in a state that votes for Kennedy conservative.

"But the economy is also destroyed easily having another 9/11 agreed? Thats a 1 trillion dollar hit to our economy. John McCain is the best in this area.. "

With McCain wanting to end interigation of suspected terrorists at Guantanimo Bay, extending Constitutional rights to them and not wanting to do a damn thing on illegal immigration he is more attractive to terrorists than 72 virgins.

54
posted on 01/26/2008 6:56:22 PM PST
by Abbeville Conservative
(Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee...if you've seen one Arkansas governor then you've seen them all.)

Romney was talking about the kind of timetables instituted by Pres Bush - timetables for certain benchmarks/milestones to be met by the Iraqi govt by certain dates, NOT a timetable for a withdrawal a la the dems! In fact, Romney specifically stated he would veto the kind of timetable for withdrawal the democrats were seeking.

In May 2006, Governor Romney Traveled To Iraq To Meet With The Troops. Traveling under tight security, Governor Mitt Romney yesterday wrapped up an unannounced, one-day trip to Iraq to visit troops from Massachusetts, and warned against a cut and run pullout from the war-torn country. (Frank Phillips, Romney Makes Surprise Stop In Baghdad, The Boston Globe, 5/25/2006) http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#wot

It seems McCain and his supporters can't tell the difference between a timetable for withdrawal and timetables for milestones and objectives to be met, just like the liberal author of this article about the Bush timetable:

Bush Drafting Iraq Timetable

James Joyner | Sunday, October 22, 2006

After two years of villifying anyone who suggested a timetable was needed in Iraq, the Bush administration is reportedly now drafting a timetable for Iraq.

The Bush administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to address sectarian divisions and assume a larger role in securing the country, senior American officials said. Details of the blueprint, which is to be presented to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki before the end of the year and would be carried out over the next year and beyond, are still being devised. But the officials said that for the first time Iraq was likely to be asked to agree to a schedule of specific milestones, like disarming sectarian militias, and to a broad set of other political, economic and military benchmarks intended to stabilize the country. Although the plan would not threaten Mr. Maliki with a withdrawal of American troops.....http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/10/bush_drafting_iraq_timetable_/

The MSM wants Romney to win? You’re flat out nuts. They’ve been dumping on Romney since he entered the race. They repeat the McCain-Huckabee talking points about Romney as if they’re the gospel truth. They’re constantly suggesting that the American public won’t vote for a Mormon. They’re constantly slamming Romney for using his own money to fund his campaign. The MSM wants Romney to lose and they’re doing everything they can to see it happen. Clean the wax out of your ears and listen to just one MSM “news” broadcast.

I think there are four groups of people who have antipathy toward Romney, with some overlap.

1. Sincere opponents who are very concerned about his softness on issues/policies/principles of great importance to them.

2. People who don't want a Mormon in the White House giving credence to what they consider to be an evil cult. And simple anti-Mormons bigots.

3. Jealousy. He is too goody-goody. He is too handsome, too rich, too tall, has too good-looking a wife and family. Is too smart (which feels like condescension to them). They don't like that guy in high school who got all the honors and married the Homecoming queen. He makes them feel inadequate.

I just cannot believe the level of this McCain hysteria. You would put Hillary freaking Rodham Clinton in charge of the War on Terror? Hillary picks judges? That may be the dumbest logic I have ever heard.

I was not for McCain, and he pissed me off. But the man is Pro Life, Pro Gun, Pro Military and wants to kill the bad guys. He is generally a Reagan economic devotee, but has made some of the VERY SAME mistakes that Ronald Reagan did. Is he Reagan? Of course not. And I would rather Thompson be the nominee.

But the idea that McCain is not only worse than Romney, who no one has a freaking clue what he really believes, but HILLARY?

What are some of you smoking? Just send the freaking country to the hell of Hillary?

Immigration is a big issue, no doubt, but when it comes to the War and judges, McCain is a BILLION times better than Hillary. He very well might cut spending and cut taxes, but if he DOESN’T the GOP can oppose the opposite just as easily as they can if its HRC.

Well, there's no question but that the president and Prime Minister Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone."(ABC's "Good Morning America," 4/3/07)

Dont get why people hate the guy. I can understand people who have some trepidation about him, but theres a contingent on FR that just outright hates the guy.

What you should be asking yourself is why the best business man, the most presidential looking, the best funded, one of the best debaters, one of the most qualified people in terms of experience along with all of the backing of talk radio, the new media and religious right leaders can't seem to break out of the pack and become the front runner. I think that if McCain, Huckabee, Hunter or Thompson had the money and support from talk radio that Romney has, they would have wrapped things up by now. Its a moot point because non of those guys have the money or the support but it should make you wonder about this guy's electability.

No double standard. Put simply governors win over senators for the presidency. Ex or otherwise. Its because governors have executive experience and because senators have voting records the haunt them while governors dont. We know McCain has voted against tax cuts. We know that he is for amnensty. We know he is anti-free speach. The list goes on and on for him.

Exactly. That's because even with benchmarks or milestones you would have a time certain by which specific objectives are to be completed and the enemy could just wait for that. Duh. No timetables should ever be made public. Period.

What exactly don't you people understand about Romney specifically stating he would veto a timetable for a withdrawal?

Mitt Romney has repeatedly expressed his support for the war, the surge and his commitment to staying as long as it takes to get the job done.

Some examples:

Governor Romney Would Not Deny Our Military Leaders And Troops The Resources And Time Needed To Succeed In Iraq. "Today, the nation's attention is focused on Iraq. All Americans want U.S. troops to come home as soon as possible. But walking away now or dividing Iraq up into parts and walking away later would present grave risks to the United States and the world....There is no guarantee that the new strategy pursued by General Petraeus will ultimately succeed, but the stakes are too high and the potential fallout too great to deny our military leaders and troops on the ground the resources and the time needed to give it an opportunity to succeed." (Governor Mitt Romney, "Rising To A New Generation Of Global Challenges," Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007)

Governor Romney Is Committed To Success In Iraq And Afghanistan. "At a minimum, success means not leaving behind a safe haven in Iraq and Afghanistan for Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, from which they can finance, train and launch devastating attacks on America, Israel, and the world. In Iraq, the Surge's success has been vital to ensuring that Al Qaeda is denied a safe haven from which to launch attacks." (Romney For President, "Strategy For A Stronger America: Defeating The Jihadist Threat," Press Release, 10/17/2007)

- Governor Romney: "Well, a President Romney is not going to set a specific timeline that would suggest that we don't care whether al Qaeda is playing a major role in that country or not. It is critically important to America and the world that al Qaeda not have a safe haven in the nation of Iraq. And, so, to set an artificial deadline which ignores whether or not al Qaeda is being successful is, in my view, a position which would  which should disqualify someone as a potential president -- president of the country." (Fox News' "Your World," 9/12/2007)

"But McCain's straight talk express swerved into the mud on this one, and the fact that he chose to do so suggests some desperation. He will only get away with it if the MSM who have invested so heavily in his success cover for him."

I think I see some desperation also in the fact that Sen Martinez was talked into endorsing McCain after he had said he would remain neutral. Then out of the blue Gov Crist comes along and endorses McCain. I think and hope this indicates their internal polls are showing Mitt is doing well in Fl. The Republican establishment obviously wants McCain.

Might have something to do with the fact that he's been the biggest target of the campaign. Everyone has attacked him constantly, both the media and the other candidates. As far as grassroots support goes, he's getting a delayed boost because candidates such as Hunter and Thompson were getting solid conservative support, Thompson more than Hunter.

If Romney wins Florida, which is looking like a serious probability, then Giuliani will drop out and McCain will need a miracle.

McCain is out there today in Florida saying that Gov. Romney favored a time table for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Here’s some of the excerpts from an AP report:

“He said he was quoting Romney as favoring a “timetable” for withdrawal and argued that he was not misquoting Romney, saying, “Clearly, the impression was that he was ready to set a date for withdrawal.”

But Romney quotes circulated by McCain’s campaign didn’t show Romney making that exact comment  nor did aides back up McCain’s earlier comment that suggested that Romney “wanted to set a date for withdrawal.””

This is from the Corner Online:

“UPDATE: As I think about McCain’s effort to now use the battle of Iraq this way - to inaccurately characterize Romney’s statement re Iraq, to refuse to correct himself despite the evidence showing his characterization is false, and now to say in response to Romney demanding an apology  ‘’I think the apology is owed to the young men and women serving this nation in uniform, that we will not let them down in hard times or good. That is who the apology is owed to’’  is to use Iraq and the soldiers as the Left does. Jim Woolsey has already been sucked into this. I hope others won’t be.”

Also from The Corner:

“I’m starting to think Sen. McCain should not be allowed to mention the other candidates’ names within 30 days before a primary. I mean, he levels an allegation about Romney that’s just flat not true, and if some organization wanted to run an add calling him on it, they would be in violation of his “reform” of campaign finance regulations. What a racket!”

They don’t even know why they hate Romney so much. The reasons they give don’t make sense but they keep on hating him and hating him - right there with the media and liberal democrats - all in bed together hating Mitt Romney. It’s a mystery.

The MSM has spent years NOT saying anything bad about McCain. They’ve got plenty of stuff saved up.

Your suggestion they can’t turn on a dime presumes they have some recalcitrance to looking like hypocrits. But they won’t, nor will it hurt them to do so, because they’ll put on the big “how could we know, we thought he was a great guy — but there was that whole Keating Five thing, I guess it wasn’t a one-time thing”. it will be easy for them.

Of course, maybe they won’t. In which case we’ll have a President trying to pass Amnesty, appointing FEC officials who will apply McCain/Feingold to the internet, and generally playing nice with the democrats in the senate to prove how bi-partisan he is.

"McCain (McDole08) appeals to blue states, independents, vetrans, old person(a major voting block), etc.. he can win the general election. Romney is 5-10 points below McCain I think in potential for general election success."

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.